If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Today's official story from O'Brien is that Jamaal was

When asked why he wasn't at the game it's because Jim told him he didn't have to come.

At first this was just a minor blip to me about covering up Jamaals abscense, but now it's just getting sad.

Believe me, I understand that the team would like to avoid any negative headlines about any of our players least of all Jamaal.

So I understood the injury story.

However once you've been called on it, the worst thing you can do (btw it is what O'Brien is doing) is continue to lie about it but change your story all at the same time.

Not to mention insulting a player from another team. Listen to his radio show and listen to what he says about Stephen Jackson. Now I realize that bashing Jackson will probably earn him some points around here but if this is ever proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was "suspended" then he just basically called Stephen Jackson a liar when he was the one lying.

The best thing he could have done and should have done from here on out is "no comment". Yes, guilt buy default but then you avoid the old ancient proverb of keeping silent and making everyone thing you are a fool vs. opening your mouth and proving it.

Believe me, my tolerance for O'Brien is at rock bottom right now because I am still hopping mad at that Pheonix game.

O'Brien said before and after Wednesday's win over Golden State that Tinsley was inactive because of an injured left knee.
Several people with knowledge of the situation, however, said Tinsley was "suspended" and "disciplined" after an incident during the team's film session the previous day.
Thursday, O'Brien said he "deactivated" Tinsley.
"As an NBA coach I have the ability and the right to deactivate any player I want," O'Brien said after practice Thursday. "I deactivated Jamaal and Ike (Diogu)."
Diogu was at the game; Tinsley was not.
Tinsley practiced Thursday and appeared to move well during the team's light workout. Afterward, he declined an interview request through a team spokesman.
Most players this season, including Tinsley, have attended games and practices when injured.
"Not if I tell him he doesn't have to show up for the game," O'Brien said, when asked why Tinsley wasn't there. "It's not the first time this year a player was deactivated that wasn't on the bench or here. That's totally up to the head coach. . . . What I told you (Wednesday) is the story I'm sticking with."
Tinsley has been dealing with several injuries the past few weeks but is expected to play Saturday against Sacramento.
"I intend to have him activated next game," O'Brien said.

Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

Re: Today's official story from O'Brien is that Jamaal was

When asked why he wasn't at the game it's because Jim told him he didn't have to come.

At first this was just a minor blip to me about covering up Jamaals abscense, but now it's just getting sad.

Believe me, I understand that the team would like to avoid any negative headlines about any of our players least of all Jamaal.

So I understood the injury story.

However once you've been called on it, the worst thing you can do (btw it is what O'Brien is doing) is continue to lie about it but change your story all at the same time.

Not to mention insulting a player from another team. Listen to his radio show and listen to what he says about Stephen Jackson. Now I realize that bashing Jackson will probably earn him some points around here but if this is ever proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was "suspended" then he just basically called Stephen Jackson a liar when he was the one lying.

The best thing he could have done and should have done from here on out is "no comment". Yes, guilt buy default but then you avoid the old ancient proverb of keeping silent and making everyone thing you are a fool vs. opening your mouth and proving it.

Believe me, my tolerance for O'Brien is at rock bottom right now because I am still hopping mad at that Pheonix game.

O'Brien said before and after Wednesday's win over Golden State that Tinsley was inactive because of an injured left knee.
Several people with knowledge of the situation, however, said Tinsley was "suspended" and "disciplined" after an incident during the team's film session the previous day.
Thursday, O'Brien said he "deactivated" Tinsley.
"As an NBA coach I have the ability and the right to deactivate any player I want," O'Brien said after practice Thursday. "I deactivated Jamaal and Ike (Diogu)."
Diogu was at the game; Tinsley was not.
Tinsley practiced Thursday and appeared to move well during the team's light workout. Afterward, he declined an interview request through a team spokesman.
Most players this season, including Tinsley, have attended games and practices when injured.
"Not if I tell him he doesn't have to show up for the game," O'Brien said, when asked why Tinsley wasn't there. "It's not the first time this year a player was deactivated that wasn't on the bench or here. That's totally up to the head coach. . . . What I told you (Wednesday) is the story I'm sticking with."
Tinsley has been dealing with several injuries the past few weeks but is expected to play Saturday against Sacramento.
"I intend to have him activated next game," O'Brien said.

"That's my story and I'm sticking to it" may be a cute Country music cliche but it is generally accepted to mean "I'm lying but I'll go to my grave with the lie". It really really sounds disengenuous.

But then, when is the last time a CEO of a major company ever come out and spoke the truth....Our employees are our most important asset..being among the most prevalent. I doubt if "the truth" is ever really told to the public about much of anything. Because "You can't handle the truth" is widely believed.

If you get to thinkin’ you’re a person of some influence, try orderin’ somebody else’s dog around..

Re: Today's official story from O'Brien is that Jamaal was

What's the big scandal, Peck?

An NBA coach does have the discretion to tell players where to be during the game. He can tell Foster to stand under the basket, can't he? And he can tell Tinsley to stay the hell home. It doesn't take any official act of suspension to put a player on the bench, nor does it require any official act to say, "Take a day off and rest your knee. While you're doing that, think about your future with this team and in this league."

I contend that O'Brien has not lied at all. There IS a suspension process, and the Pacers did not employ it with respect to Tinsley. He was not suspended.

As far as what actually happened during the film session, we still don't know and that is either O'Brien saying "No Comment" (Which you say he should have done.) or else the reporters failing to follow-up on the real story.

This incident cannot be rightly evaluated until we see what happens next. If Tinsley shapes up, then O'Brien did the right thing. If Tinsley continues to screw around and the Pacers bench him, fine him, suspend him or trade him with the next incident, then O'Brien did the right thing this time. But if things continue to be screwy and inconsistent and management never does take hold of the problem, then you will have been right about this and O'Brien (and TPTB) will deserve your criticism.

Last edited by Putnam; 01-18-2008 at 09:03 AM.

And I won't be here to see the dayIt all dries up and blows awayI'd hang around just to seeBut they never had much use for meIn Levelland. (James McMurtry)

Re: Today's official story from O'Brien is that Jamaal was

Suspension - not paid for the game

Inactive - paid

The fact that he was asked not to attend the game - that speaks volumes to me. That begs the question - why did Jim tell JT not to attend the game. It isn't like it is a road game. Logic would tell us, he probably had some type of disagreement with JT, and thought it was better that he stay away for a day, clear his head.

Peck, I don't see what all the fuss is about. If he got paid for the game then he was not suspended, although I siuppose a team could and has suspended a player with pay - I think they did that with Artest in '03.

I don't understand why a number of you are using this against O'Brien. Regardless of anything, he disciplined Tinsley - isn't that what everyone has wanted for years. And now that we have a coach willing to discipline a player, everyone is complaining about the exact laguage used. I really don't understand it. Look at the big picture.

Re: Today's official story from O'Brien is that Jamaal was

An NBA coach does have the discretion to tell players where to be during the game. He can tell Foster to stand under the basket, can't he? And he can tell Tinsley to stay the hell home. It doesn't take any official act of suspension to put a player on the bench, nor does it require any official act to say, "Take a day off and rest your knee. While you're doing that, think about your future with this team and in this league."

I contend that O'Brien has not lied at all. There IS a suspension process, and the Pacers did not employ it with respect to Tinsley. He was not suspended.

As far as what actually happened during the film session, we still don't know and that is either O'Brien saying "No Comment" (Which you say he should have done.) or else the reporters failing to follow-up on the real story.

This incident cannot be rightly evaluated until we see what happens next. If Tinsley shapes up, then O'Brien did the right thing. If Tinsley continues to screw around and the Pacers bench him, fine him, suspend him or trade him with the next incident, then O'Brien did the right thing this time. But if things continue to be screwy and inconsistent and management never does take hold of the problem, then you will have been right about this and O'Brien (and TPTB) will deserve your criticism.

I agree for the most part with this.

This could have well been a 1 game suspension "in spirit" while not being
an official suspension. Depending on what precipitated it, it might just
have been the most diplomatic way of handling the situation without being
too heavy handed which may cause lingering ill feelings.

We won the game that night, so right decisions appear to have been made.

Re: Today's official story from O'Brien is that Jamaal was

Yes. Take the coaches word at face value and quit speculating on this. OBie answered the question and I'm sure he had his reasons. Jack loves to stir up trouble in Indiana, and he succeeded without even being on our team!

Re: Today's official story from O'Brien is that Jamaal was

Whats the old saying, "Don't get to high over a win, and don't get to low over a loss."

I would say that proverb goes double for what you hear from the media nowdays. "Don't get to high over a good story, and don't get to low over a bad story." Especially a bad story, because news outlets always accentuate the negative.

I agree with what Geezer said about, 'That's my story and I'm sticking to it.' That's just a bad way to state your case.

This is said to have all come about over an 'incident during a film session.' We don't know exactly what happened, or what was said.

Even if O'B told Tins he was suspended in front of the whole team, (and we don't know that he did) he has the power to change a suspension to instead putting a player on the inactive list. If that's the case then O'B isn't lying about the result.

Mostly I blame Mike Well's and his gossip type reporting. He doesn't do his job like newsmen used to do and get the facts before reporting, he just writes hearsay and enough to cause controversy.

Re: Today's official story from O'Brien is that Jamaal was

Made Inactive for disciplinary as well as health reasons could easily devolve to Suspended in casual conversation with a bud (sic).

If JOB did what UB says, it would feel like a suspension and JT would whine about it as a suspension.

Therefore, in an odd way, both are right - one is using the word casually while the other is sticking to the legal/contract definition.

After all, if it was a deactivation with a "don't show up" clause, JOB and the Pacers would get in big trouble with the PA for calling it a suspension since they didn't follow the process. JT and SJ and others aren't under the same constraints.

Note: it doesn't change my feelings. If there was an incident at a film session I still feel Tinsley's an idiot for biting the hand that feeds him. Sorry, he isn't AI.

Last edited by BillS; 01-18-2008 at 10:11 AM.
Reason: Additional info

BillS

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

Re: Today's official story from O'Brien is that Jamaal was

The fact that he was asked not to attend the game - that speaks volumes to me. That begs the question - why did Jim tell JT not to attend the game. It isn't like it is a road game. Logic would tell us, he probably had some type of disagreement with JT, and thought it was better that he stay away for a day, clear his head.

Peck, I don't see what all the fuss is about. If he got paid for the game then he was not suspended, although I siuppose a team could and has suspended a player with pay - I think they did that with Artest in '03.

I don't understand why a number of you are using this against O'Brien. Regardless of anything, he disciplined Tinsley - isn't that what everyone has wanted for years. And now that we have a coach willing to discipline a player, everyone is complaining about the exact laguage used. I really don't understand it. Look at the big picture.

Re: Today's official story from O'Brien is that Jamaal was

Not to mention insulting a player from another team. Listen to his radio show and listen to what he says about Stephen Jackson. Now I realize that bashing Jackson will probably earn him some points around here but if this is ever proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was "suspended" then he just basically called Stephen Jackson a liar when he was the one lying.

OK, I did listen to the show. And I think you are out of line on this.

What O'Brien says is, "Consider the source." That is entirely appropriate. No opposing player has the right to speak for the Pacers. It is a non-issue that it happened to be Jackson, and O'Brien said nothing particular or specific about it being Jackson.

O'Brien did not call Jackson a liar, or even imply that he is a liar. All O'Brien said was "Consider the source." All that implies is that Jackson is not a reliable or authoritative source for information about the Pacers.

Anybody got a problem with that?

And I won't be here to see the dayIt all dries up and blows awayI'd hang around just to seeBut they never had much use for meIn Levelland. (James McMurtry)

Re: Today's official story from O'Brien is that Jamaal was

The fact that he was asked not to attend the game - that speaks volumes to me. That begs the question - why did Jim tell JT not to attend the game. It isn't like it is a road game. Logic would tell us, he probably had some type of disagreement with JT, and thought it was better that he stay away for a day, clear his head.

Peck, I don't see what all the fuss is about. If he got paid for the game then he was not suspended, although I siuppose a team could and has suspended a player with pay - I think they did that with Artest in '03.

I don't understand why a number of you are using this against O'Brien. Regardless of anything, he disciplined Tinsley - isn't that what everyone has wanted for years. And now that we have a coach willing to discipline a player, everyone is complaining about the exact laguage used. I really don't understand it. Look at the big picture.

Re: Today's official story from O'Brien is that Jamaal was

How about Tinsley....afterall if he hadn't acted up, this would be a non-issue.

That's true, but it is Tinsley we're talking about!

I've had the thought several years in a row now that he does something every year at this time to hurt his trade value so the Pacers can't trade him. Then again I think . . . well I was reading Chad Ford's chat this morning on ESPN, and the following was posted.

----------Kenny (Indiana): What is Larry Bird going to do in Indiana? or do we still have to live w/ Dunleavy and Granger in the starting lineup together in which 1 will be playing out of positin at SG.

Chad Ford: They're in limbo. They're a solid team, but aren't going to scare anyone on any given night. They're defense has been awful. To me the Pacers have always hinged on Tinsley. When he's healthy and in the zone, they are tough to beat. When he's injured (which seems to be all the time) or out of the zone (which also happens on a regular basis) they tank. I've felt for the longest time ... he's the guy you've got to replace. You can't have such inconsistency from your floor leader.
----------

I agree! I don't think we will go anywhere until we get rid of Tins. I think he and his life style are a real problem. It took the Blazers years to shed the JailBlazers nickname, because there was always some rotten apples left.

Finally they decided to just go after good character guys and look what's happened! That's what I want the Pacers to do!

Re: Today's official story from O'Brien is that Jamaal was

I've had the thought several years in a row now that he does something every year at this time to hurt his trade value so the Pacers can't trade him. Then again I think . . . well I was reading Chad Ford's chat this morning on ESPN, and the following was posted.

----------Kenny (Indiana): What is Larry Bird going to do in Indiana? or do we still have to live w/ Dunleavy and Granger in the starting lineup together in which 1 will be playing out of positin at SG.

Chad Ford: They're in limbo. They're a solid team, but aren't going to scare anyone on any given night. They're defense has been awful. To me the Pacers have always hinged on Tinsley. When he's healthy and in the zone, they are tough to beat. When he's injured (which seems to be all the time) or out of the zone (which also happens on a regular basis) they tank. I've felt for the longest time ... he's the guy you've got to replace. You can't have such inconsistency from your floor leader.
----------

I agree! I don't think we will go anywhere until we get rid of Tins. I think he and his life style are a real problem. It took the Blazers years to shed the JailBlazers nickname, because there was always some rotten apples left.

Finally they decided to just go after good character guys and look what's happened! That's what I want the Pacers to do!

We agree on something!

If you get to thinkin’ you’re a person of some influence, try orderin’ somebody else’s dog around..

Re: Today's official story from O'Brien is that Jamaal was

Portland . . . decided to just go after good character guys and look what's happened! That's what I want the Pacers to do!

I'm glad to see this statement. Now, Will, the question is who are the good character guys, and who needs to go. I'm just trying to encourage your point. I agree that this needs to happen. And it means putting character over talent and turning a deaf ear to the critics.

Who, then, are the people who need to go because of character.

Tinsley? Absolutely. He's exhibit A
Harrison? Bye, bye, Hulk.

Now it gets tougher.

Daniels? He's facing charges after 8 Seconds (Is that reason enough?)
O'Neal? He was charged for the brawl (Is that reason enough?)
Williams? Driving charges and drugs last Fall (Is that reason enough?)

Any more?

Rush? Bernie Bickerstaff dumped him, but I think that issue is in the past.
Foster? Uttered "That's good-*** defense" during a game. think of the children. (I'm kidding.)

And I won't be here to see the dayIt all dries up and blows awayI'd hang around just to seeBut they never had much use for meIn Levelland. (James McMurtry)

Re: Today's official story from O'Brien is that Jamaal was

Who do you think told Jackson? Someone that knows more than anyone on here, that's for sure, and probably Tinsley.

Obviously they had some issue at the film session and that turned into a pretty standard "suspended with pay" situation. I agree with Peck that JOB tried to downplay it just like Rick used to do, if anything it's for the player's benefit (their rep/image).

It came out and JOB/TPTB are trying to spin out of an awkward situation.

And blaming Jackson is just naive (or more likely biased). When he said this how in the world does he know what the official post-game explanation from TPTB is? For all he knows at that point is that this has happened and has been publically addressed in the pre-game presser.

You guys act like he got up the next day, read the paper and said "I'm not going to let them get away with this, my boy was unfairly suspended." That's not what happened. He answered a question as though the suspension was already a known issue.

If that's the case then O'B isn't lying about the result.

Technically, but come on, we're adults here. And regardless there is "asked to stay home" due to injury and due to disagreement. He's still denying the disagreement and if that's true then he is lying/spinning.

Re: Today's official story from O'Brien is that Jamaal was

And blaming Jackson is just naive (or more likely biased). When he said this how in the world does he know what the official post-game explanation from TPTB is? For all he knows at that point is that this has happened and has been publically addressed in the pre-game presser.

Online sites were already saying Tins was out because of his knee. If I knew it hours before the game, so did Jackson.

Re: Today's official story from O'Brien is that Jamaal was

"Consider the source." All that implies is that Jackson is not a reliable or authoritative source for information about the Pacers.

But again were not kids, we all know that is a common phrase with a definite implication behind it. It's not as simple as "they don't know our info", it carries the weight of the person being undependable due to character issues.

You use it to attack the person bringing the information to light as a means of defense for yourself.

"Jose Conseco said you did steriods with him McGwire."
"Yeah, but consider the source."

That doesn't mean "how would he know", that means "he's the type to make crap up for reasons of attention/stirring trouble".

And JOB didn't even coach Jackson, so consider HIS source on Jackson as a person.

They are throwing Jack under the bus because they know you guys will bite on it due to the outrageous dislike of him. But the story that came out cited MULTIPLE sources, not just Jackson, and again Jack didn't present it in a stirring the pot forum. Tinsley wasn't there, he mentioned it and the reason he thought everyone knew at that point. Why wouldn't they know if it was presented to him as common knowledge? You assume he spoke with someone that knew, maybe Tins, and that discussion probably was more like "he told him/me to sit out a game", "he/I got suspended for tonight, it was BS", etc without some follow-up of "but the official story is that he's/I'm just injured so keep it cool tonight if anyone asks".